EU, UK to step up Brexit talks to try to close 'significant gaps' over trade deal

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Either it happens or its no deal.

Given how Johnson is now backsliding on his deadlines what do you think is going to happen?

Freedom of movement is not being negotiated and it is the EU who is pushing the time back, as usual. Because of the latter I think the chances are there will be some kind of deal. 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, polpott said:

Its better to give than receive. No need to thank me.

Not where bookies are concerned.

[Rookiescot]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Freedom of movement is not being negotiated and it is the EU who is pushing the time back, as usual. Because of the latter I think the chances are there will be some kind of deal. 

Really? Freedom of movement and access to the single market are conjoined in the view of the EU.

You sure its not being talked about?

[Rookiescot]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not where bookies are concerned.

Amen.

[bannork]

Johnson's given in regarding a level playing field. Agreed to go to arbitration if EU and UK unable to agree on particular instances.

 

 

 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

 

Remainers abused existing laws and created new ones to try and prevent the democratically decided action for the UK.

What existing laws were abused by Remainers and how? What new laws did Remainers create?

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

The judiciary were instrumental in the Remainers attempts to thwart the mandated government actions to bring about Brexit and the law for our Withdrawal from the EU.

Are you suggesting that the judiciary (Supreme Court presumably?) acted illegally? How so? 

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

 

As for the Supreme Court, which is not supposed to be part of the Parliamentary process

 

The law lords sat in the House of Lords, which is part of the parliamentary process and thus part of the legislature. The creation of Supreme Court removed any link to the legislative process.

[Rookiescot]

3 minutes ago, bannork said:

Johnson's given in regarding a level playing field. Agreed to go to arbitration if EU and UK unable to agree on particular instances.

 

 

 

The Brexiteers blinked first ????

[nauseus]

55 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Really? Freedom of movement and access to the single market are conjoined in the view of the EU.

You sure its not being talked about?

Really. The aim is a trade agreement. 

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Really. The aim is a trade agreement. 

Yeah but what happened to all that sovereignty? 

[nauseus]

Just now, Rookiescot said:

Yeah but what happened to all that sovereignty? 

It's Saturday, have another beer. 

[Loiner]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

What existing laws were abused by Remainers and how? What new laws did Remainers create?

Are you suggesting that the judiciary (Supreme Court presumably?) acted illegally? How so? 

The law lords sat in the House of Lords, which is part of the parliamentary process and thus part of the legislature. The creation of Supreme Court removed any link to the legislative process.

The initial 'Gina Miller law' requiring an Act of Parliament prior to issuing the Article 50 notice is an example of how the existing provision was abused via a new law. Subsequently, all the various amendments to the Withdrawal Act were effectively the same Remainer attempts to use legislation to prevent Brexit. That abuse of the law continued right through to the Supreme Court decision on another Gina Miller appeal and judgement about proroguing parliament.

I have not questioned the legality of the judiciary's actions, but their actions I think corrupt. That a bunch of politically appointed judges can make judgement over parliamentary matters is also corrupt.

 

You can challenge the legalities of any and all of this sorry history as much as you wish. I do not intend to enter into that, but in response to the poster's convoluted assertion of "...what little respect the hardliners have for the judiciary and rule of law." I would repeat that with regard to the judiciary and Supreme Court actions in Brexit, I have no respect at all for them.

[Phulublub]

7 hours ago, luckyluke said:

Sorry, I don't get your humour, nor do I understand what you consider as funny. 

We are geographically both Europeans, but so different. 

I am with you.  I hardly recognise (or wish to be associated with) some of those who were born on the same island as me.

 

PH

[nauseus]

58 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

I am with you.  I hardly recognise (or wish to be associated with) some of those who were born on the same island as me.

 

PH

New Jersey? 

[CG1 Blue]

6 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Really? Freedom of movement and access to the single market are conjoined in the view of the EU.

You sure its not being talked about?

Access to the single market and joining the single market are two different things. Have a look and see if Japan or Canada agreed to FOM in their trade deals. And while you're researching perhaps you can dig out any credible links to back up your claim that FOM is being negotiated in the Brexit talks. 

[RayC]

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

The initial 'Gina Miller law' requiring an Act of Parliament prior to issuing the Article 50 notice is an example of how the existing provision was abused via a new law.

There was no 'Gina Miller law'. She took the government to court over the interpretation of the existing law at the time and won.

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

Subsequently, all the various amendments to the Withdrawal Act were effectively the same Remainer attempts to use legislation to prevent Brexit.

The Withdrawal Bill tabled by Johnson was approved by Parliament in its entirety. The amendments proposed by the Lord's were rejected.

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

That abuse of the law continued right through to the Supreme Court decision on another Gina Miller appeal and judgement about proroguing parliament.

How can it be abuse of the law if an independent judiciary makes a ruling?

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

I have not questioned the legality of the judiciary's actions, but their actions I think corrupt.

The dictionary definition of corrupt is "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain." Where is the evidence to suggest that any member of the Supreme Court acted in that way?

 

What do you actually mean? You accept that the judicial process was correct, but that the ruling wasn't? 

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

 

That a bunch of politically appointed judges can make judgement over parliamentary matters is also corrupt.

The UK - and most other functioning democracies - accept the need for the judiciary to be independent of the legislature. Would you do away with this distinction and open the door to the possibility of a dictatorship?

 

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

You can challenge the legalities of any and all of this sorry history as much as you wish. I do not intend to enter into that, but in response to the poster's convoluted assertion of "...what little respect the hardliners have for the judiciary and rule of law." I would repeat that with regard to the judiciary and Supreme Court actions in Brexit, I have no respect at all for them.

You have no respect for the Supreme Court. I have no respect for this government. We differ.

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, Loiner said:

Don't know about you, but I regard the judiciary and the rule of law as two different things.

 

In the case of Brexit, the concept of rule of law has been manipulated by Remainers to frustrate the Brexit legal process. Although we had laws enacted to enable the referendum and give notice of withdrawal, Remainers abused existing laws and created new ones to try and prevent the democratically decided action for the UK. The judiciary were instrumental in the Remainers attempts to thwart the mandated government actions to bring about Brexit and the law for our Withdrawal from the EU.

 

My respect for the judiciary in this case is nonexistent. For the judiciary generally, and their daily failure to adequately enforce the full weight of the law in our courts, my respect also continues to be pretty low. As for the Supreme Court, which is not supposed to be part of the Parliamentary process, but another separate and political construct of Tony Blair, well I hold that with nothing but contempt.

 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1177051/brexit-news-boris-johnson-supreme-court-prorogation-parliament-ruling-tony-blair-spt

 

No need for the verbal diarrhea. 

Describing the Lawgazette as a legal comic said it all.

[sandyf]

8 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Access to the single market and joining the single market are two different things. Have a look and see if Japan or Canada agreed to FOM in their trade deals. And while you're researching perhaps you can dig out any credible links to back up your claim that FOM is being negotiated in the Brexit talks. 

The Canada agreement, CETA, started in 2009 and is still only provisional, each state must ratify and to date only 15 states have done so. CETA does not involve the single market rules so FOM was never a question. A custom dispute resolution was drawn up and as far as I am aware still not totally resolved. The deal was never as simple as some would make out.

The physical distance between Canada and the EU is a bit different to that of the UK and it is pure pie in the sky to think that the UK will get a similar agreement.

[sandyf]

17 hours ago, kingdong said:

then the British government's going to have to do what it says on the tin...Govern,and if they don,t they,ll face the consequences,people in the uk were getting sick of the eus interferance in british affairs which led to brexit,may the remainer,worst p.m britains had for decades did absoulutly jack in her 3 year term,now we,ve got a worldwide depression in the post.whilst its true the british are one of the most apathetic races on earth when it comes to complaining and voting even a worm will turn,a very big thank you to the remainers for pouring fuel on this current fire,there may be trouble ahead.

Plenty of trouble ahead, mainly self inflicted.

 

An obscure rule is to be used to deny MPs a crucial vote aimed at blocking imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef, sparking fresh fears about food quality after Brexit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-chlorinated-chicken-eu-mps-boris-johnson-b914047.html

[billd766]

15 hours ago, Phulublub said:

I am with you.  I hardly recognise (or wish to be associated with) some of those who were born on the same island as me.

 

PH

I can assure you that the feeling is mutual.

[Loiner]

12 hours ago, RayC said:

There was no 'Gina Miller law'. She took the government to court over the interpretation of the existing law at the time and won.

The Withdrawal Bill tabled by Johnson was approved by Parliament in its entirety. The amendments proposed by the Lord's were rejected.

How can it be abuse of the law if an independent judiciary makes a ruling?

The dictionary definition of corrupt is "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain." Where is the evidence to suggest that any member of the Supreme Court acted in that way?

 

What do you actually mean? You accept that the judicial process was correct, but that the ruling wasn't? 

The UK - and most other functioning democracies - accept the need for the judiciary to be independent of the legislature. Would you do away with this distinction and open the door to the possibility of a dictatorship?

 

You have no respect for the Supreme Court. I have no respect for this government. We differ.

Yes, there was a new law the 'European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017', which was forced by Gina Miller's Supreme Court Judgement.

The Withdrawal Act was subjected to various amendments before Boris's version made it through parliament. There were numerous amendments in a series of meaningful votes and indicative votes.

When the judiciary is riddled with Remainers and not independent it becomes an abuse of the law.

Corruption does not have to be for monetary or personal gain. Go find yourself a better dictionary.

An elected government enacting a mandated referendum result is not a dictatorship.

[Surelynot]

Oh dear.......and this must be true.....it's in The Express 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1346362/Brexit-news-eu-trade-deal-latest-boris-johnson-michel-barnier-brussels-sell-out

[RayC]

2 hours ago, Loiner said:

Yes, there was a new law the 'European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017', which was forced by Gina Miller's Supreme Court Judgement.

Hardly a 'Gina Miller law'. Just the government accepting that if it needs to act in accordance with the law.

Quote

The Withdrawal Act was subjected to various amendments before Boris's version made it through parliament. There were numerous amendments in a series of meaningful votes and indicative votes.

Incorrect. Read the section entitled 'Legislstive History'

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal_Agreement)_Act_2020

Quote

When the judiciary is riddled with Remainers and not independent it becomes an abuse of the law.

An opinion - not fact - with no evidence other than you don't like the outcome of a particular case to support it.

Quote

Corruption does not have to be for monetary or personal gain. Go find yourself a better dictionary.

Why don't you point me in the direction of one? Oh, that's right. You don't do that!

Quote

An elected government enacting a mandated referendum result is not a dictatorship.

No it isn't. But ignoring rulings made by an independent judiciary is a step along the road to it.

Edited October 11, 2020 by RayC
Clarification. Missed words

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Surelynot said:

Oh dear.......and this must be true.....it's in The Express 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1346362/Brexit-news-eu-trade-deal-latest-boris-johnson-michel-barnier-brussels-sell-out

I miss the old 'Daily Star' headlines, so it's good that 'The Express' is now filling the void. What can we expect next: 'Express Exclusive: Michel Barnier is Elvis' love child'.

[CG1 Blue]

10 hours ago, sandyf said:

The Canada agreement, CETA, started in 2009 and is still only provisional, each state must ratify and to date only 15 states have done so. CETA does not involve the single market rules so FOM was never a question. A custom dispute resolution was drawn up and as far as I am aware still not totally resolved. The deal was never as simple as some would make out.

The physical distance between Canada and the EU is a bit different to that of the UK and it is pure pie in the sky to think that the UK will get a similar agreement.

FOM was never a question for the Canada FTA, and rightly so. And FOM is not a question anymore in the UK's FTA talks. And rightly so. 

 

Free trade agreements are not negotiated based on airmiles. In fact, near neighbours should arguably offer each other better terms. 

[7by7]

10 hours ago, sandyf said:

Plenty of trouble ahead, mainly self inflicted.

 

An obscure rule is to be used to deny MPs a crucial vote aimed at blocking imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef, sparking fresh fears about food quality after Brexit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-chlorinated-chicken-eu-mps-boris-johnson-b914047.html

 I'm surprised a Brexiteer hasn't responded with their usual "no one will force you to buy it" nonsense.

 

Forgetting that to boycott chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef and other foods currently banned under EU food safety standards, such foods will have to be labelled as such!

 

Will they need to have such labels? Not according to the government guidance Food and drink labelling changes from 1 January 2021.

 

Although for beef, veal, lamb, mutton, pork, goat, poultry, fish, shellfish and some other foods the country of origin must still be shown.

[7by7]

22 hours ago, Loiner said:

<snip>

That a bunch of politically appointed judges can make judgement over parliamentary matters is also corrupt.

That you believe that only shows that you have no knowledge or understanding of our constitution. Either that or you want to do away with it!

 

As with all Parliamentary, common law democracies, the UK has three branches of government: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

 

The executive comprises the Crown and the government, including the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers. The executive formulates and implements policy. The legislature, Parliament, comprises the Crown, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The judiciary comprises the judges and other officers of the courts and tribunals of the three UK legal jurisdictions, overseen by the Supreme Court. Senior judicial appointments are made by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations from a selection commission.

 

Some of the measures of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 were:

• placing a duty on government Ministers to uphold the independence of the judiciary, barring them from trying to influence judicial decisions through any special access to judges;
• reform of the post of Lord Chancellor, transferring the judicial functions of the post to the President of the Courts of England and Wales – a new title given to the Lord Chief Justice who is now responsible for the training, guidance and deployment of judges and representing the views of the judiciary of England and Wales to Parliament and Ministers;
• the establishment of an independent Supreme Court, separate from the House of Lords, with its own independent appointments system, staff, budget and building;
• the creation of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, responsible for selecting candidates to recommend for judicial appointment to the Secretary of State for Justice. The Judicial Appointments Commission ensures that merit remains the sole criterion for appointment and that the appointments system is modern, open and transparent.

You also display little or no, knowledge of the separation of the legislature and the judiciary.

 

In cases before the courts judges are required to interpret legislation in line with the intention of Parliament.  Judges can be influential in the way they interpret and apply legislation but they may not challenge the validity of an Act of Parliament. They may declare an Act of Parliament to be incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights but may not strike it down for this reason.

 

Although judges are responsible for the development of the common law, Parliament may legislate to overturn or modify the common law, thus overriding the judge made law.

 

So, if you do understand all that; with what would you replace it?

 

 

Edited October 11, 2020 by 7by7
Addendum

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Hardly a 'Gina Miller law'. Just the government accepting that if it needs to act in accordance with the law.

Incorrect. Read the section entitled 'Legislstive History'

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal_Agreement)_Act_2020

An opinion - not fact - with no evidence other than you don't like the outcome of a particular case to support it.

Why don't you point me in the direction of one? Oh, that's right. You don't do that!

No it isn't. But ignoring rulings made by an independent judiciary is a step along the road to it.

Independent? ????

Bliar stuffed the court to the gunwhales with woke Marxist Fabians & ensured no one could join them without 'a lifetime's commitment to Diversity'. Our courts haven't been this bad since the days of the witchfinder general!

Challenges to the above remain active, but under the current system it's like asking Dracula to audit a blood bank.

[evadgib]

34 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

That you believe that only shows that you have no knowledge or understanding of our constitution. Either that or you want to do away with it!

???????? doesn't have a constitution. ???????????????????????????? does and it's very powerful and still in force...

Edited October 11, 2020 by evadgib

[7by7]

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

Independent? ????

Bliar stuffed the court to the gunwhales with woke Marxist Fabians & ensured no one could join them without 'a lifetime's commitment to Diversity'. Our courts haven't been this bad since the days of the witchfinder general!

Challenges to the above remain active, but under the current system it's like asking Dracula to audit a blood bank.

 Did you get this nonsense from one of your WWG1WGA conspiracy fellows: David Icke, perhaps?

 

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

???????? doesn't have a constitution. ???????????????????????????? does and it's very powerful and still in force...

Flags don't have constitutions.

 

However, the United Kingdom does have a constitution; but not written in any one specific document called such.

 

You should broaden your reading beyond QAnon; start with Britain's unwritten constitution.

Quote

Another characteristic of the unwritten constitution is the special significance of political customs known as ‘conventions’, which oil the wheels of the relationship between the ancient institutions of state. These are unwritten rules of constitutional practice, vital to our politics, the workings of government, but not committed into law or any written form at all. The very existence of the office of Prime Minister, our head of government, is purely conventional. So is the rule upon which he or she is appointed, being whoever commands the confidence of the House of Commons (the majority party leader, or head of a coalition of parties).

 

[Loiner]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

Hardly a 'Gina Miller law'. Just the government accepting that if it needs to act in accordance with the law.

Incorrect. Read the section entitled 'Legislstive History'

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal_Agreement)_Act_2020

An opinion - not fact - with no evidence other than you don't like the outcome of a particular case to support it.

Why don't you point me in the direction of one? Oh, that's right. You don't do that!

No it isn't. But ignoring rulings made by an independent judiciary is a step along the road to it.

Would Theresa May have sent the letter to invoke Article 50 without being legally forced to get approval of Parliament first? Gina's Law.

Read the Hansard records of the EU Withdrawal Acts for 2018 and 2019. Remainers legal run arounds.

Yes my opinion again for you - the judiciary and Supreme Court is corrupt.

If you really need direction for another dictionary definition you will not get one from me.

The Supreme Court was not independent but running wick with Remainers.